Backdoor move to cut Social Security and Vetrans Benefits

Republicans, some Democrats and President Obama are pushing the concept of a chained CPI, a backdoor way to make substantial cuts in Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans. Incredibly, they are arguing that the COLAs that seniors receive for Social Security are too generous. Bernie and many economists believe they are not generous enough.

If a chained CPI goes into effect, seniors who are 65 now will receive $650 less a year at 75 and would get $1,000 less a year at age 85. Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by over $3,000 a year at age 65. Bernie recently told the Associated Press, "I do not believe that the American people want to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans or widows who lost their husbands in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Replies to This Discussion

Nonetheless, it sounds from the sound bite like they are taking money AWAY, which is not the case. If in 10 years I am getting 650 less per year under the new rules than the old ones... well, not great, but it's not like they're pulling my plug.

The problem is this: the world, the mindset that created social security expected that working people would far outnumber retired ones. Extended lifespans and reduced birthrate (both GOOD things) have pulled the legs out from under that structure. For the sake of my grandchildren the government MUST get it's fiscal house in order, and there is no better time than NOW to start.r

Well, jay, as a Social Security beneficiary I'd like to suggest that the first step for the government to get it's fiscal house in order is to stop stealing from the Social security trust fund, fairly tax the super rich and corporations, stop bailing out criminal bankers, and stop giving a wink and nod to massive tax evasion.

The reason we have a financial crisis isn't longer lifespans, it's corruption. The 1% "own" both parties, so the government dances to their tune. You paid ten percent over your working lifetime for that very modest guaranteed income in your old age. It's NOT an entitlement, it's your money the government took out of your paycheck allegedly for your old age. The government has "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund and never, of course, paid it back.

From 1983 to 2011, it collected more Social Security taxes than it paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these securities is completely dependent on the Treasury’s ability to raise money through taxes or borrowing.”

Concurrent Resolution on the Budget— Fiscal Year 2013 (aka The Ryan Budget)

... the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it ...

Why has the government been stealing your money? Because the very rich don't like to pay taxes. It sounds like they are taking money away from you because they are! Let them raise taxes on the corporations, close all of their damned loopholes, and pay back every cent they "borrowed".

There are few areas where the corruption of the national media is more apparent than in its treatment of Social Security. Most of the elite media have made it clear in both their opinion and news pages that they want to see benefits cut. In keeping with this position they highlight the views of political figures who push cuts to the program, treating them as responsible, while those who oppose cuts are ignored or mocked.

This pattern of coverage was clearly on display last weekend. Both the New York Times and Washington Post decided to ignore the Senate's passage by voice vote of the Sanders Amendment. This was an amendment to the budget put forward by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that puts the Senate on record as opposing the switch to the chained CPI as the basis for the annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). [emphasis mine]

[TV says: "My job is to keep you distracted while restricting the limits of public debate. I sensationalize talking points to keep you focused on the trivial while ignoring the important questions. I never contradict the status quo because what I really do is deliver state sponsored propaganda. What I omit is often more significant than what I share."]

I'd revise that to "corporate propaganda and shiny, attractive containers for commercials".